1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

Top 1% would give up their tax cuts

Discussion in 'Economics, Business, and Taxes' started by 888888, Dec 27, 2011.

  1. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Good for you! Now tell us what percent of those favoring repeal are in that camp. It still doesn't alter the fact that those expressing favorability towards Obamacare are nowhere close to a majority.
     
  2. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    I figured they should know:

    According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative."[18]


    Oh, yes, and it's "conservative" in a British sense, which puts them on a par with Mark Zandi (who no conservative this side of John McCain feels is "conservative").
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. 888888

    888888 Council Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    73
    questions are all about how you ask them!

    and you are wrong Lurkey, because they do not ask are you voting to scrap the plan because you don't think it's a good one or are you voting to repeal because you think it didn't go far enough.

    1 -2- January 14-16, 2011
    1
    14. Thinking about the health care bill which was passed into law last March, do you favor all of the
    proposals in that bill, favor most of them, oppose most of them, or oppose all of them?
    Jan. 14-16
    2011
    Favor all 6%
    Favor most 39%
    Oppose most 34%
    Oppose all 16%
    No opinion 5%
    15. And if you had to choose, would you rather see Congress vote to repeal all of the provisions in the
    new law or would you rather see Congress vote to leave in place all the provisions in the new law?
    Jan. 14-16
    2011
    Repeal all provisions 50%
    Keep all provisions in place 42%
    No opinion 8%

    I think your polls are looking for an answer they want!

    What do you think the answer would be from the right would be if they had to choose between Obama and Bachman, who would they vote for if they had to choose. Iit would be 95% bachman even though shes a nut case.

    And what do you think would be the vote from the right on affordable health act to keep it or get rid of it? It would be 98% because they are mostly nut cases.

    The bill just doesn't go far enough
     
  4. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    I think that is quite revealing actually. It puts the lie to Degsme's suggestion that the repeal number is inflated by those who want it repealed so we can get single payer. Unless they are lying they would fall in the "favor most" contingent, in which case the oppose all/oppose most is a pretty clean number (50%) which comports nicely with the "repeal all provisions" number. So that would seem to make it appear that Degsme's "repeal because it doesn't go far enough" group is a statistically insignificant number! LOL!
     
  5. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Notice how you leave out the part of the arguement he is actually making.... namly that the idea that in a recession "multipliers would be larger than normal as well" does nothing to contradict the data that in a NORMAL economy - such as the growth one that Reagan had when his tax cuts to the upper quintile had a GDP Growht REDUCTION effect (and the FM for those was 0.7).

    So again, you aren't actually offering any contradiction to what the data says. Nor does your source - Mankiw - actually say what you claim he says.

    I know you BELIEVE him to be saying that, but that's NOT what his words mean.
     
  6. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Irrelevant. My point FROM THE OUTSET was that the "repeal Camp" contains both those who oppose any public funding as well as those that support both Public Option and "Single Payer".

    I've demonstrated my point. Your counterclaim that this isn't so is
    1) refuted
    2) demonstrates that your use of Krugman didn't actually support your claim

    IOW once again, you have not cited a single liberal source to make your arguement. I have cited numerous CONSERVATIVE sources.

    why? Becuas data is data and SOME conservative economists are intellectually honest about the data.
     
  7. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Right... self-description has always been such an accurate measure.
     
  8. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    FICA is a federal tax on income that 100% of workers pay
     
  9. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Go read my reply to 8ball - I just blew your argument out of the water...
     
  10. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    They admittedly accept Keynesian theories. That's NOT conservative in ANYONE'S book...
     
  11. 888888

    888888 Council Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    73
    But Lurkey can you tell me how this went from the ultra rich giving up 1% to people don't like Affordable Health care, to FICA tax.?
     
  12. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    It all started when I pointed out the Marxism behind your proposal...
     
  13. 888888

    888888 Council Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    73
    No what it proves is ask a question that will give you the results you want. comment on the results as you want them to be looked at.

    Not to mention that all the writings, all the ads made are almost 95% against the AHC. people don't have a clue how this will play out but they have opinions based on what they are being told, what they see and hear from people who have put all their efforts into pointing out anything they can make a case for that would convince someone who really doesn't take the time to find out to be against AHC.
     
  14. 888888

    888888 Council Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    73
    You mean when I showed the patriotic stance should be, you changed the topic to keep people away from looking at the greed of the right!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL
     
  15. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Hint 888888 - it's not "greed" to covet your OWN money...
     
  16. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Um once again you are engaged in invalid logic.

    Favor Most or even All, would still exclude those who are demanding Public Option or Single Payer. And those who "Oppose Most" could well include Single Payer since "most" includes the Commercial Market options which are the antithesis to Single Payer.

    So no, its not the clean number you posit at all.
     
  17. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,764
    Likes Received:
    2,170
    Our system of government was designed to allow individuals to be free, within a framework of laws and rules. It's system of government, not a system of social engineering. When the rules for that government were written, they contained neither a program for wealth redistribution nor the powers necessary to conduct such a program.

    That would come as a suprise to the Second Dynasty societies of Egypt, who were focussed on their "living gods," a larger surprise to the societies in Medieval France who were focussed on serving their feudal masters and their divine-right kings, and a surprise amounting to shock for serfs living in 1870s Ivanov Russia. Societies do many things, Degs. Wealth redistribution is the result in most of them, but the goal of few, the stated goal of even fewer, even when the society and its religious are in lockstep. In a country such as ours, where the government is largely hands off of individuals, it isn't at all uncommon for the government to do one thing (outlaw marijuana or alcohol) and society to do another (drink alcohol and smoke marijuana all it wants). Attempting to link them is a false construct.


    And the way to achieve that goal is what? To take from the wealthy owners and give ownership to the workers -- if that isn't wealth redistribution, I'm not certain what else it would be called (and that's setting aside "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" -- the naivete of an idealist on display).

    I'm not certain I agree here. "Wealth redistribution" for the purposes of our discussion has to be more than incidental. Was the primary goal of slavery wealth redistribution, or manual labor? Franklin famously said many things, some of which contradict each other. The statement on private property you use in your signature is directly in opposition to other statements he made -- like the Bible his is a large body of work that can be quoted to make almost any case.

    I'm sorry, but that is not the primary reason for most society's existence. Societies come together for many reasons, and the benefits to all that result from residing in a given society are usually incidental to that residence. Even if wealth redistribution were the key reason for society, that still leaves the issue that society, being as it is what happens among people, is separate from government. They are certainly linked, but they are not the same thing. You apparently see a design for wealth redistribution written into the United States' governmental system -- I see no such design, at least none written into the plan describing that design.
     
  18. Citizen

    Citizen Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    21
    As you can see from the right winger replies, they have no intention of ever wanting to do anything that would actually help America & those that are unemployed or poor.


    They are a disgusting bunch.....
     
  19. justoffal

    justoffal Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,998
    Likes Received:
    4,944
    Unfortunately the misconceptions begin with the often inferred idea that the nation was founded on the golden rule...it was not. It may have had Christianity as an element but there are no implicit guarantees of wealth written into the original documents. Frnaklin said it best. " The constitution protects your right to pursue wealth....but you have to earn it yourself "....


    Having said that I am and always have been something of a socialist myself...I just fight back when people try to ram it down my throat and tell me it's my obligation...it is not my obligation though it may sometimes be my choice.
     
  20. justoffal

    justoffal Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,998
    Likes Received:
    4,944
    The reason why we will never see that happen and in fact why we will not even see an increase on the upper brackets is because most of congress is in that upper bracket category and that includes most of the democrats. They talk a good game in public but do you honestly think people like Nancy Pelosi, now worth more that sixty million bucks, is going to agree to give you more of her wealth? If we go to her home will we find a large portion of the property dedicated to feeding poor Blacks and Hispanics? I think probably not.
     

Share This Page